The St. Johns herald., 1887-09-15

contract made for the sole benefit ofthe company. Mutuality in ben eft was expected and intended, and mutual obligations were entered in to and equity and good concience would require of both parties a faithful observance of these obliga- tions.
 The Atlantic and Pacific compa- ny proposed to build a railroad from Sprindfeld, Mo. to the wes- tern boundery of the State; thence to a point on the Canadian River :; thence to the town of Albuquerque. in New Mexico; thence to the head waters of the Colorado Chiquito, thence along the thirty-ffth paral- Tel of latitude to the Colorado Riv- CT, thence to the Pacific Ocean.
 The government was asked to make Q grant of land to aid in the construction of this proposed road,
 This was done in the most liberal manner; but it was provided by the eight section of the granting Pact =
 That each and every grant, right and privelege herein are so made and given to and accepted by said Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Com pany upon and subject to the fol- lowing conditions-namely that the said company shall commence the work on said road within two years from the approval of this act by the President, and shall com plete not less than fifty miles per year after the second year, and shall construct, equip, furnish and complete the main line of the whole road by the fourth day of July, anno Domino187S.
 Did the company comply with this clear and specific contract?
 Did it commence the construc- tion of its road in the two years named? Did it prosecute the work as required? Did it complete its main line at the time named? In fact, has it yet completed the main line?
 If at the time this company ap- piled for it's grant it had stated its purpose was to build the proposed road, or so much of. it as it might desire, from time to time, and in such fragments, or to and from such points as pleased its management, and that the government should withdraw from entry and settle ment along it's whole line all the land in both granted and indemni- ty limits, and keep such lands in a state of indefinite withdrawal to wait the pleasure or convenience of the company, is it believed for moment that Congress would have listened to the application for grant? Yet this is exactly what the company insists Congress has done, with the further assertion that al- though the company may violate every specification of its contract the government is bound in equity not only to carry out the contract on it's side, but to guarantee to it monopoly for an indefinite period of a vast part of the public domain not contemplated by the grant. I do not so understand either the law or the equity of the case.
 On full consideration of the whole subject I conclude that the withdrawal for indemnity purposes, if permissible under the law, was solely by virtue of Executive au- thority, and may be revoked by the same authority. That such revo- cation would not be violation of either law or equity, and that said land having been so long withheld for the benefit of the company, the time has arrived when public policy and justice demand the withdrawal should be revoked and some regard | had for the rights of those seeking and needing homes on the public domain.
 If had any doubt I would be